The Judge's reasoning is based on the principle of "standing"-- whether someone is actually injured and therefore is a proper person to sue. Since the plaintiffs are by their own admission "unemployed or underemployed" they have no ACTUAL INJURY which gives them standing to sue. The case would probably have been decided the other way if the plaintiffs had been well-paid and lost their jobs to immigrants, because such facts would have let the judge *grant* them the standing required.
I wonder whether it was possible that the judge decided as she did even against a possible personal bias, based on the preliminary necessity she be able to find a precedent to grant the plaintiffs "standing". (The law can be like that..)
Delaying a person's ability to tell a lie is only part of it. My wife, a neuropsychologist and former med school instructor tells me it has been shown that application of a magnetic field to one particular part of the brain makes the subject "aware of the presence of God", or gives him or her the experience of God's presence. Pardon the pun, but this is heady stuff.
Note though the Washington Supreme Court has disallowed GPS evidence, the District Court in the instant case has specifically ALLOWED it. From TFA:
The Foltz case offers a rare glimpse into how a Washington area police department uses GPS. Foltz's attorney, Chris Leibig, challenged police in court last week and tried to have the GPS evidence thrown out. He argued at a hearing at Arlington County General District Court that police needed a warrant since the device tracked Foltz's vehicle on private and public land. The judge disagreed, and the evidence will be used at Foltz's trial, which will begin Oct. 6. Foltz was charged in the Feb. 6 attack, but not in the others.
When this gets to the Washington Supreme Court it is likely they will not reverse any conviction, based on the US Supreme Court's stance that tracking a car with a beeper is OK (also from TFA).
R&D Lab in residential neighborhood. It's a zoning case. Ostensibly-- the city official describes it as a "hobby" but he did tell them he patents things and experiments may be related, in their view.
Commercial software distributors are more like Hollywood producers or studio heads, producing (they hope) popular stuff for profit. F/OSS software authors (who act as their own distributors) are more like academicians publishing scholarly findings, new and elegant math proofs, and the like.
Whose stuff do you want to depend on, the producer's? Or the professor's? Who is more likely to produce quality, intelligent work and a benefit for humanity?
Up to about ten years ago, I practiced law. I would always write the harshest contract I could and leave objections, if any, to the other side (which more often than not was lazy enough to leave some things as written). Of course, I represented the good guys, and we *never* took advantage of some of those oppressive terms.
Such a clause in a contract is natually invalid. You can not agree to unspecified or future terms, in a contract you only agree to specified a terms, and specifying unspecified terms is not magic loophole any court accepts.
As a (shudder) LAWYER I can tell you in the US that such clauses *are* OK so long as the change is not one which a judge (or jury) feels materially alters the bargain. What "materially alters the bargain" is up to the said judge or jury. An extra $3.00 per month on a $100.00 per month bill? Probably OK at least if some extra functionality is gotten for it, or if the carrier shows the charge enabled it to skip passing along other government fees to everyone, not just heavy text-receivers.
Now this is admittedly nebulous, but the whole reason we need juries is no law or contract can be detailed enough to cover all cases that arise.
VOLTAIRE?? Get a grip! We're talking American here! It was, IIRC, Patrick Henry or Thomas Paine! (Correct me if I'm wrong but it sure as heck was not Voltaire!!!)
Even if you legally buy XP preinstalled from Canada, I wonder whether the BSA would attack it as not properly licensed for your business. If they decide you're in the wrong and sue, you may be forced to settle for ca. $5,000.00 for each "improperly licensed" installation of XP.
Ironically, the law expressly allows inconsistent pleadings, exemplified in the King's Bench "Case of the Kettle", in which it was held competent, in a case in which the Defendant was said to have borrowed a kettle and returned it with a crack, to plead:
1. That he never borrowed the kettle. 2. That the kettle was never cracked. 3. That the kettle was cracked when he borrowed it.
These are legal fictions, and legal fictions, as we know, are solemn things.:-> On a more serious note, I doubt the RIAA or SafeNet will be put to pillory for their inconsistency.
Florida uses the M'Naghten Rule for determination of insanity. The question is whether "the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong". Contrast this with the Model Penal Code definition, in use in other states: that one lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his actions, or to conform his behavior with the requirements of law. Both of these beat the pants off the "Policeman at the Elbow" definition, which holds you not guilty by reason of insanity if you would not have been able to restrain your act even with a policeman at your elbow.
There is not much doubt that the Model Penal Code rule is the most circumspect and modern. Florida, in using M'Naghten, is not necessarily a throwback state, however. If you intended to kill Santa Claus, should you have known that that was wrong? After all, isn't he a mythical figure whom bullets would leave unharmed?
"If we find a bunch of random files on your drive, the burden is on *you* to prove that they aren't naughty bits."
What about the fifth amendment? You can refuse to incriminate yourself by doing the decryption and you don't have to say *why* doing the decryption would incriminate you. No prosecution.
Also in the case of Freenet, you quite literally do not know what is on your disk and might not be able to decrypt it no matter how many Lugers the copyright Gestapo point at your nose.
Alcoholism is a disease. Some alcoholics are unable to fight it without a "safe" environment (i.e. alchohol free).
Obesity can be caused by a disease process. Some victims of thyroid afflictions cannot lose weight without some radical solution like bariatric surgery.
Smoking is a harder addiction to kick than heroin. Unfortunate addicts cannot get clean without extended torture. Is it right to impose this upon them because they got hooked more easily than expected?
Controlling any of these "health risks" is easier for some and harder for others based on biological differences. How do we justify imposing a different burden on different victims?
As Blake said:
Every morn and every night Some are born to sweet delight; Every night and every morn Some to endless night are born. Some are born to sweet delight; Some are born to endless night.
Hey, don't joke! This is dead serious! Take a look at this note from the designer of the Tesla Cable series:
On the dawn of discovery I was hoping to develop cables that would be small, light and flexible while maintaining the same levels of performance obtained in our X2 Series cables. What I was not prepared for was the break-through that would become the TESLA Series. After a long trial and error process in developing an electromagnetic lens geometry we arrived at what would become the TESLA Tricon in the summer of 2006. I remember in vivid detail that afternoon when I first connected two interconnects comprised of two TESLA Tricon geometries in parallel, (now the Precision Reference) and listened to a recording I've been using since 1995. Fifteen seconds into the first track I shot up and ran from my listening chair to find Eliott (my co-developer in the TESLA Series). I could not believe my ears and wanted to find out if something had been changed in our system that I was not aware of, (we love to tweak our system and I needed to know if he had changed something). What I heard was unbelievable! The sound stage had moved out so far past the boundaries of our listening room that I suspected a major change had been made to our listening room's acoustics. Furthermore, I was hearing subtle and not so subtle details and frequency extension from bottom to top that I've never before heard from this recording. The truly amazing thing was that this detail and signal speed was presented in a way that was also much more musical than it had been before. By comparison the sound we had been making was grainy, opaque, spatially compressed and slow with ill-defined bass. Now the sound was HUGE with amazing air that seemed to decay into infinity. The sound had a transparent "see through" quality and was absolutely effortless and grain free. The sound stage had also moved back several feet except when instruments were recorded front and center and these were presented further forward than before. I was beginning to realize that every cable I or anyone else had ever developed was spatially compressed- vertically, laterally, and horizontally. I was also hearing images in a near 360-degree sound field that "wrapped" around my listening chair. Before the Tricon we had hints of this envelopment but never to such an extent. Lastly low frequencies, (a long time virtue of Synergistic Research cables) were now tighter and went deeper with amazing power and control. This was major improvement in an area that I did not think could be improved upon.
How can we teach everyone to pay attention when their computers slow down, the disks thrash, lights on the cable modem go nuts, and strange bounces appear in their email? This isn't rocket science. We need to get the word out!
Gosh, is there anyone who can't be bothered to run XP in a virtual machine? Corollary: Is there anyone with so little desire to bite back at monopolists that they knuckle under and pay for XP?
I beg to differ. I am a *very* happy Netflix subscriber and the catalog of films for instant viewing is *huge*. You probably don't get to see all offerings until you subscribe and have access to the browsing interface. Not only is it ready for prime time, it is raising the bar. (The flaw is that Windows is required to view the instant titles.)
Seems to me MediaDefender also violated their ISP's Terms Of Service. Why then are they still on the net? The difference is the corporate pocketbook. Corps squirm and fight and hire lawyers and delay delay delay. That makes it a wearying and distasteful job to punish them. Corps are also big enough that their business is something their ISPs would rather look the other way than lose.
Slashdot Mirror
The Judge's reasoning is based on the principle of "standing"-- whether someone is actually injured and therefore is a proper person to sue. Since the plaintiffs are by their own admission "unemployed or underemployed" they have no ACTUAL INJURY which gives them standing to sue. The case would probably have been decided the other way if the plaintiffs had been well-paid and lost their jobs to immigrants, because such facts would have let the judge *grant* them the standing required.
I wonder whether it was possible that the judge decided as she did even against a possible personal bias, based on the preliminary necessity she be able to find a precedent to grant the plaintiffs "standing". (The law can be like that..)
Delaying a person's ability to tell a lie is only part of it. My wife, a neuropsychologist and former med school instructor tells me it has been shown that application of a magnetic field to one particular part of the brain makes the subject "aware of the presence of God", or gives him or her the experience of God's presence. Pardon the pun, but this is heady stuff.
Note though the Washington Supreme Court has disallowed GPS evidence, the District Court in the instant case has specifically ALLOWED it. From TFA:
When this gets to the Washington Supreme Court it is likely they will not reverse any conviction, based on the US Supreme Court's stance that tracking a car with a beeper is OK (also from TFA).
Bottom line: This technique is here to stay.
R&D Lab in residential neighborhood. It's a zoning case. Ostensibly-- the city official describes it as a "hobby" but he did tell them he patents things and experiments may be related, in their view.
Commercial software distributors are more like Hollywood producers or studio heads, producing (they hope) popular stuff for profit. F/OSS software authors (who act as their own distributors) are more like academicians publishing scholarly findings, new and elegant math proofs, and the like.
Whose stuff do you want to depend on, the producer's? Or the professor's? Who is more likely to produce quality, intelligent work and a benefit for humanity?
Up to about ten years ago, I practiced law. I would always write the harshest contract I could and leave objections, if any, to the other side (which more often than not was lazy enough to leave some things as written). Of course, I represented the good guys, and we *never* took advantage of some of those oppressive terms.
Well, hardly ever. (grin)
Such a clause in a contract is natually invalid. You can not agree to unspecified or future terms, in a contract you only agree to specified a terms, and specifying unspecified terms is not magic loophole any court accepts.
As a (shudder) LAWYER I can tell you in the US that such clauses *are* OK so long as the change is not one which a judge (or jury) feels materially alters the bargain. What "materially alters the bargain" is up to the said judge or jury. An extra $3.00 per month on a $100.00 per month bill? Probably OK at least if some extra functionality is gotten for it, or if the carrier shows the charge enabled it to skip passing along other government fees to everyone, not just heavy text-receivers.
Now this is admittedly nebulous, but the whole reason we need juries is no law or contract can be detailed enough to cover all cases that arise.
VOLTAIRE?? Get a grip! We're talking American here! It was, IIRC, Patrick Henry or Thomas Paine! (Correct me if I'm wrong but it sure as heck was not Voltaire!!!)
Even if you legally buy XP preinstalled from Canada, I wonder whether the BSA would attack it as not properly licensed for your business. If they decide you're in the wrong and sue, you may be forced to settle for ca. $5,000.00 for each "improperly licensed" installation of XP.
Me, I'm just a country lawyer.
You and Sam Ervin. (grin)
As the saying goes, "The wheels of Justice grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine"....
Ironically, the law expressly allows inconsistent pleadings, exemplified in the King's Bench "Case of the Kettle", in which it was held competent, in a case in which the Defendant was said to have borrowed a kettle and returned it with a crack, to plead:
1. That he never borrowed the kettle.
2. That the kettle was never cracked.
3. That the kettle was cracked when he borrowed it.
These are legal fictions, and legal fictions, as we know, are solemn things. :-> On a more serious note, I doubt the RIAA or SafeNet will be put to pillory for their inconsistency.
Florida uses the M'Naghten Rule for determination of insanity. The question is whether "the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong". Contrast this with the Model Penal Code definition, in use in other states: that one lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his actions, or to conform his behavior with the requirements of law. Both of these beat the pants off the "Policeman at the Elbow" definition, which holds you not guilty by reason of insanity if you would not have been able to restrain your act even with a policeman at your elbow.
There is not much doubt that the Model Penal Code rule is the most circumspect and modern. Florida, in using M'Naghten, is not necessarily a throwback state, however. If you intended to kill Santa Claus, should you have known that that was wrong? After all, isn't he a mythical figure whom bullets would leave unharmed?
Yes, but this is the kind of thing they really want:
http://plexipages.com/gesta.jpg
"If we find a bunch of random files on your drive, the burden is on *you* to prove that they aren't naughty bits."
What about the fifth amendment? You can refuse to incriminate yourself by doing the decryption and you don't have to say *why* doing the decryption would incriminate you. No prosecution.
Also in the case of Freenet, you quite literally do not know what is on your disk and might not be able to decrypt it no matter how many Lugers the copyright Gestapo point at your nose.
All the article notes is that a proportion of NON - I.T. grads *THINK* that I.T. would be boring.
Where is the news here? Very poor summary.
Alcoholism is a disease. Some alcoholics are unable to fight it without a "safe" environment (i.e. alchohol free).
Obesity can be caused by a disease process. Some victims of thyroid afflictions cannot lose weight without some radical solution like bariatric surgery.
Smoking is a harder addiction to kick than heroin. Unfortunate addicts cannot get clean without extended torture. Is it right to impose this upon them because they got hooked more easily than expected?
Controlling any of these "health risks" is easier for some and harder for others based on biological differences. How do we justify imposing a different burden on different victims?
As Blake said:
Every morn and every night
Some are born to sweet delight;
Every night and every morn
Some to endless night are born.
Some are born to sweet delight;
Some are born to endless night.
"...glass is not in an equilibrium state, (although it appears that way to us during our limited lifetimes)..."
Glass is a *very slow* liquid. According to TFA you can note some flow in very old panes which can appear distorted. This is very cool.
How can we teach everyone to pay attention when their computers slow down, the disks thrash, lights on the cable modem go nuts, and strange bounces appear in their email? This isn't rocket science. We need to get the word out!
Gosh, is there anyone who can't be bothered to run XP in a virtual machine? Corollary: Is there anyone with so little desire to bite back at monopolists that they knuckle under and pay for XP?
I beg to differ. I am a *very* happy Netflix subscriber and the catalog of films for instant viewing is *huge*. You probably don't get to see all offerings until you subscribe and have access to the browsing interface. Not only is it ready for prime time, it is raising the bar. (The flaw is that Windows is required to view the instant titles.)
Just means the FBI has jurisdiction. Not that they'll assume it, of course.